VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Regulation was the wrong word to use. Also, I dont feel I'm being fleeced, I dont have SF. My issue is the cherry picking. I think they should have told them "If you want to end HO policy's, you cant write anything else" http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/bank...ticle971104.ece That sounds like regulation to me. Seriously you don't like that business great. I've had state farm since I started driving and love them. They have my house, cars, etc... I pay a little more but when something happens it's always taken care of immediately and very friendly. One time it wasn't I complained to my agent and I had serior bosses calling and apologizing and the situation taken care of within minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Florida insurance is screwed up from what I understand, no matter who you insure with, that is why so many cos are leaving the state. Even subsidized by the Feds, they can't sustain themselves. Maybe folks should just leave the state to the older generation... I just can't write the next sentence... too mean and sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Florida insurance is screwed up from what I understand, no matter who you insure with, that is why so many cos are leaving the state. Even subsidized by the Feds, they can't sustain themselves. Maybe folks should just leave the state to the older generation... I just can't write the next sentence... too mean and sarcastic. eryn is old, very, very old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 eryn is old, very, very old. 50's not old you freakin Midget!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 50's not old you freakin Midget!! You can get an AARP card. You're old. very, very old. I maybe short, but you just keep getting older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Maybe regulation was the wrong word to use. Also, I dont feel I'm being fleeced, I dont have SF. My issue is the cherry picking. I think they should have told them "If you want to end HO policy's, you cant write anything else" http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/bank...ticle971104.ece Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You do realize that the article you linked supports my point. After State Farm pulls out, there won't be any more national carriers underwriting HO policies, meaning that for the next big hurricane, the state or feds will need to come in, as the remaining companies will not have the capital to pay out the policies. The papers call what SF is doing a loophole by writing auto & life policies through different SF companies, but the reality is that each of those businesses is different, because gauging the payout risk of a blue haired lady driving her Fairlane into traffic is different than gauging the risk of a Hurricane blowing Tampa into the Gulf. Go ahead, drive SF and Allstate out of the state. Who will write the policies then? It's not all SF fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 See this is the type of garbage I was expecting all of the ultra-conservatives here to spew. Are you saying GG that insurance companies can't turn a profit with these regulations or is it they can't maximize their profits due to regulations? I have a feeling it's the maximize thing but do you really believe that insurance companies will leave because they don't make a profit? This is the type of a response I also expect from someone who doesn't understand life. If a corporation ceases to make a profit, it usually ceases to exist. In FL there's a big difference between maximizing a profit, vs losing money due to the regulations on HO policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You do realize that the article you linked supports my point. After State Farm pulls out, there won't be any more national carriers underwriting HO policies, meaning that for the next big hurricane, the state or feds will need to come in, as the remaining companies will not have the capital to pay out the policies. The papers call what SF is doing a loophole by writing auto & life policies through different SF companies, but the reality is that each of those businesses is different, because gauging the payout risk of a blue haired lady driving her Fairlane into traffic is different than gauging the risk of a Hurricane blowing Tampa into the Gulf. Go ahead, drive SF and Allstate out of the state. Who will write the policies then? It's not all SF fault. I do see your point, G. I just dont like it. Hand picking the lowest policy risks in the state is OK with you? In my business now, and the other business I was in for over 25 years, if you wanted the good stuff you had to take some crap with it. No Cherry picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 This is the type of a response I also expect from someone who doesn't understand life. If a corporation ceases to make a profit, it usually ceases to exist. In FL there's a big difference between maximizing a profit, vs losing money due to the regulations on HO policies. I found it hard to believe they aren't making a profit but I guess Florida law is effed up. If they can't make a profit then I agree with you and it appears with the Florida law is they really can't. I just can't believe a state run by a Bush would have a law like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I do see your point, G. I just dont like it. Hand picking the lowest policy risks in the state is OK with you? In my business now, and the other business I was in for over 25 years, if you wanted the good stuff you had to take some crap with it. No Cherry picking. That's the nature of the insurance business. Good luck trying to get a new life insurance policy on a 55-yr old 400 lb smoker. You may get one, but your premium will probably be very close to the face amount of the policy. SF probably could make a profit writing HO policies in FLA, but they would need to charge rates much higher to stay solvent. The state won't allow them to raise rates like they need to (especially with the state providing "discount" insurance, where all taxpayers are now insurers.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I found it hard to believe they aren't making a profit but I guess Florida law is effed up. If they can't make a profit then I agree with you and it appears with the Florida law is they really can't. I just can't believe a state run by a Bush would have a law like that. When did Bush become govener of Florida? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 When did Bush become govener of Florida? Jeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Jeb. I thought Crist was the gov? When did Jeb become Gov again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 BDS extends to all members of the family even if they are out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manateefan Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I didn't miss the point at all. You're saying the regulation of the company didn't go far enough. They should have regulated everything they did to the point of kicking them out of the state. You thought it would work against you and so you agreed with the regulation that kept them from getting the 47% increase because that would have been bad for you. I don't understand why you thought the 47% increase was bad at all. I'd think you'd be against them regulating that in any way. After all in a capitalistic society it's the laws of supply and demand that make everything work without any necessary regulations. If they had made that 47% increase then customers would just go to other companies. What's your problem with that? Edited to add: The reason they wanted to raise those rates, I believe, is due to higher costs from hurricanes. If you don't like it move. Yes, hurricanes could be the reason. But are they doing this in Texas? Louisana? South and North Carolina? Alabama? All these states (and others) have been hit by hurricanes and tropical storms. In 2008, Buffalo NY had stronger winds from the remnants of Ike than Florida had when it passed by us. It seems that everybody singles out Florida. A 47% increase is excessive especially when you realize that the values of the homes have dropped drastically here. And what about the excessive numbers of tornados in the midwest last year? Shouldn't that count for something? What about the mudslides and wildfires in California? The damages in Texas? Are they asking for the same kind of increase there? In 2008 Florida only had two distaster declarations. Missouri had 6, Arkansas had 5, several states had 3 including Vermont. So you can't blame just hurricanes in Florida for the cost of insurance. When you get to fire, Califorinia had 16 fires that caused major impacts. What ever you say I still believe an almost 50% increase is excessive anywhere and should be turned down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts